Re: [Gnu-arch-users] State of the Arches

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:28:04PM -0500, Deliverable Mail wrote:

> Once I started to look at tla, I see mentions of larch, baz, ArX,
> and some others.

All this is AFAIK... please forgive and correct me if I say
anything wrong. :)

larch was the original arch, written by Tom in shell scripts and
external programs (diff, patch, etc.).  It's slower and outdated now
but allowed for rapid development and prototyping of what eventually
became tla.

I think it used the same archive format.  Its relation to tla is
ancestral in standards only; the code has been rewritten.

tla is arch proper.  'Nuff said. :)

I'm not sure where ArX split from Arch, but I believe it arose due to
philosophical differences between Tom and the ArX forker.  It's
essentially unrelated to tla at this point.

baz is a Canonical fork of tla, and as I recall, there was initially
some resentment on the part of Tom as to how they handled the split.
However, it also seems to have received some blessing as a faster-
moving testing ground for tla, and I heard that its new archive format
and several other changes will make their way into arch.

> There're also references to a legacy arch.

Sounds like larch...

> How did tla come to become the GNU Arch?

This I don't know, since I don't know how any software is adopted by
the FSF as 'GNU'.

> And what is the deal with the clones, they seem to splinter the
> development and attention of those researching a new versioning
> system...

Not really.  In baz's case, it's actually helping, from what I
understand.  ArX is probably the only thing relatively unhelpful to
'GNU Arch', but that's to be expected when two different people want
to take their respective projects in different directions.

> I'd like to see a statement from GNU on the "State of the Arches",
> and/or at least "a view from the tla project," since when you start
> looking at it, it's not immediately obvious who's the original,

larch -> tla,

> who's the clone,

ArX, baz,

> which is the viable and safe bet to use for the long term.

tla first, baz a close second, IMO.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature